Magical Millionaires' Money

Democrats believe that the money of the 1% is magical. Unlike all other money, it does nothing for the economy or the country unless it is turned over to the government.Democrats apparently believe that the 1% have their wealth in crisp, clean $100 bills hidden in their mattresses. A million dollars in hundred-dollar-bills weighs roughly 22lbs and takes up a space of roughly 0.45 cubic feet. That means that Romney's entire net worth could fit into one or two king-size beds -- for the second or two before they collapse under the more than one ton of money hidden in each mattress. Be sure that Obama will soon be discussing MattressGate.

The reason why it appears that Democrats believe that the 1% hide their money in their mattresses is because Democrats keep saying that the 1% aren't contributing enough to the country. But the only way that the 1%'s filthy lucre isn't contributing is if it's hidden away.

If the 1% put their money into savings or checking accounts, they provide capital for the banks to lend out to new home owners and small business. Clearly, in the Obama economy, making money available for credit and loans is a good thing, isn't it?

If the 1% put their money into stocks, they're providing the capital companies need to expand and hire more workers. That too seems like a useful contribution to the country in the Obama economy.

If the 1% put their money into municipal, state, or federal bonds, they're helping ensure that the Democrats' spending is possible -- and the Democrats keep telling us that government spending, by Democrats, is the cure to all economic ills, right?

If the 1% go out and buy or build expensive houses, it helps invigorate the moribund housing market, which has to be good for all of those folks stuck with underwater mortgages because of the Democrats' desire to make banks loan money to people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgage.

If the 1% go out and hire help, like Michelle Obama's maid, then they are directly creating jobs, which has got to be good, given the current 8.3% unemployment rate in the Obama economy.

If the 1% contribute their money to political campaigns, they are creating new, albeit temporary, jobs that will help America recover from the Obama economy. It would seem that liberals should be praising the Koch brothers not condemning them.

If the 1% go out and spend the money on themselves -- perish the thought -- they are buying products and services mostly in America. But even Democrats agree that we need more consumer spending to get out of the Obama economy, so unless the 1% are all going to France for their shopping -- which seems to be the habit only of rich liberal celebrities -- most of the money they spend helps create jobs.

All in all, it seems that unless the 1% hide their money in their mattresses, that money is working to help America recover from the Obama economy.

In truth, what the Democrats are really saying is that only the money they get to decide to spend helps the economy. For example, a 1%-er buying a new house doesn't help America, but the Democrats sending millions down Solyndra's rat hole to help a major donor to Obama's campaign really boosts the American economy.

Democrats firmly believe that the only useful money is money that belongs to the government, to be spent by Democrats. Republic spending on defense, for example, does nothing to help the economy in the eyes of Democrats.

When Democrats call on increasing taxes on the "rich" -- since many "rich" people are actually the small business owners who create most of the jobs in America -- the question we should make them answer is this:

"Is a dollar in the hands of a private citizen that is in a bank, the stock market, or government bonds less useful for helping the economy than a dollar in the hands of the spend-until-you-go-bankrupt federal government?"

Democrats, like all good socialists, believe that central planners in the government are the only ones capable of the "smart" decisions necessary to grow an economy. Hence, their answer to the question above would be that sending the money to D.C., where über-smart Democrats can pick winners and losers in the economy, is the best way to help the downtrodden and the poor.

Realists who look at history and note that central planning has never worked anywhere would come up with a very different conclusion. They would see that the most efficient way to generate new wealth is through the decentralized and highly diverse system of capitalism.

Next time some supposedly well-intentioned liberal asks you why you don't want to raise taxes on those evil rich folk, ask them why they think the Democrats who brought us Solyndra and innumerable other bad investment decisions are more likely to use those dollars in ways that will help Americans than are the people who earned the money in the first place.

Democrats believe that the money of the 1% is magical. Unlike all other money, it does nothing for the economy or the country unless it is turned over to the government.

Democrats apparently believe that the 1% have their wealth in crisp, clean $100 bills hidden in their mattresses. A million dollars in hundred-dollar-bills weighs roughly 22lbs and takes up a space of roughly 0.45 cubic feet. That means that Romney's entire net worth could fit into one or two king-size beds -- for the second or two before they collapse under the more than one ton of money hidden in each mattress. Be sure that Obama will soon be discussing MattressGate.

The reason why it appears that Democrats believe that the 1% hide their money in their mattresses is because Democrats keep saying that the 1% aren't contributing enough to the country. But the only way that the 1%'s filthy lucre isn't contributing is if it's hidden away.

If the 1% put their money into savings or checking accounts, they provide capital for the banks to lend out to new home owners and small business. Clearly, in the Obama economy, making money available for credit and loans is a good thing, isn't it?

If the 1% put their money into stocks, they're providing the capital companies need to expand and hire more workers. That too seems like a useful contribution to the country in the Obama economy.

If the 1% put their money into municipal, state, or federal bonds, they're helping ensure that the Democrats' spending is possible -- and the Democrats keep telling us that government spending, by Democrats, is the cure to all economic ills, right?

If the 1% go out and buy or build expensive houses, it helps invigorate the moribund housing market, which has to be good for all of those folks stuck with underwater mortgages because of the Democrats' desire to make banks loan money to people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgage.

If the 1% go out and hire help, like Michelle Obama's maid, then they are directly creating jobs, which has got to be good, given the current 8.3% unemployment rate in the Obama economy.

If the 1% contribute their money to political campaigns, they are creating new, albeit temporary, jobs that will help America recover from the Obama economy. It would seem that liberals should be praising the Koch brothers not condemning them.

If the 1% go out and spend the money on themselves -- perish the thought -- they are buying products and services mostly in America. But even Democrats agree that we need more consumer spending to get out of the Obama economy, so unless the 1% are all going to France for their shopping -- which seems to be the habit only of rich liberal celebrities -- most of the money they spend helps create jobs.

All in all, it seems that unless the 1% hide their money in their mattresses, that money is working to help America recover from the Obama economy.

In truth, what the Democrats are really saying is that only the money they get to decide to spend helps the economy. For example, a 1%-er buying a new house doesn't help America, but the Democrats sending millions down Solyndra's rat hole to help a major donor to Obama's campaign really boosts the American economy.

Democrats firmly believe that the only useful money is money that belongs to the government, to be spent by Democrats. Republic spending on defense, for example, does nothing to help the economy in the eyes of Democrats.

When Democrats call on increasing taxes on the "rich" -- since many "rich" people are actually the small business owners who create most of the jobs in America -- the question we should make them answer is this:

"Is a dollar in the hands of a private citizen that is in a bank, the stock market, or government bonds less useful for helping the economy than a dollar in the hands of the spend-until-you-go-bankrupt federal government?"

Democrats, like all good socialists, believe that central planners in the government are the only ones capable of the "smart" decisions necessary to grow an economy. Hence, their answer to the question above would be that sending the money to D.C., where über-smart Democrats can pick winners and losers in the economy, is the best way to help the downtrodden and the poor.

Realists who look at history and note that central planning has never worked anywhere would come up with a very different conclusion. They would see that the most efficient way to generate new wealth is through the decentralized and highly diverse system of capitalism.

Next time some supposedly well-intentioned liberal asks you why you don't want to raise taxes on those evil rich folk, ask them why they think the Democrats who brought us Solyndra and innumerable other bad investment decisions are more likely to use those dollars in ways that will help Americans than are the people who earned the money in the first place.